Talk:Hudud Ordinances

"A number of international and Pakistani human rights organizations are making an effort to get the law repealed. They are driven by ideological considerations rather than on-the-ground considerations." This is POV, there are many reasons to get this law repealed. Please can someone arrange for this to be removed?

POV?

This entire article seems POV to me....

Me too, although I don't have any argument with protecting women's rights. In fact, my wife is one. A woman, that is.

The challenge is to rewrite all the new info neutrally. What I just reverted sounds like an anti-Hudood editorial. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I followed it all the way through in media, papers, and expert opinions. There was a very very critical essay and a lecture given by Mufti Taqi Usmani which is almost non existent in the arguments regarding the support of this ordinance. hudoodordinance.com link is broken. It didn't count as credible either. I am putting up this POV tag again. Kindly discuss it here before removing it. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Then someone needs to take the initiative instead of leaving the tag up for eternity. i've tried a new section, but it needs the legal language for all the pakistanis out there.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex and rape

Cut from article:

The Ordinance is most criticized for criminalizing all extra-marital sex (zina), and making it exceptionally difficult and dangerous to prove an allegation of rape. (strikout markup for deleted part)

Who has criticized it for criminalizing voluntary sex like adultery or premarital intercourse? I haven't seen anything like that, in or out of Wikipedia. The only criticism I've seen is that of the double standard which punishes a woman but condones a man, for the same act.

This, by the way, is a major ethical/moral difference between Christianity and Islam. Recall the New Testament account of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery. --Uncle Ed 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Reference

Reference numbers 3 and 9 are repeated, and 9 should be deleted. Reference 3 is better than 9 because it has a link to Taqi Usmani.

I tried to edit the page, but apparently the references are not editable. Can someone explain how to edit them (or just do the edit). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif Zaman (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes and additions

have made a lot of changes and additions to the article, undoing some of AJillani's changes. Over four years no Pakistan expert ever showed up. I hope it makes the article more useful and informative to the average reader. --BoogaLouie (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hudood Ordinances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229095410/http://www.hrcp-web.org/NCSW_Report.cfm to http://www.hrcp-web.org/NCSW_Report.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129025158/http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning to http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020232626/http://www.hrcp-web.org/pdf/ar_2004/2-2.pdf to http://www.hrcp-web.org/pdf/ar_2004/2-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103152201/http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/svaw_hudoo to http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/svaw_hudoo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan president).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Incoherence in the structure of a sub-topic

The "Controversy and revision", sub-section "Zina (extramarital) Ordinance" discussing the case of Safia Bibi has several incoherences in the structure.

The paragraph where Safia's case is introduced refers to her as "an unmarried blind woman" whereas her dedicated article refers to her as "a nearly blind teenaged girl", the difference in her being a woman or a teenage girl is significant. A quick google search of her case PLD 1985 FSC 120 indicates that she may be 20 years old at the time of case. This likely needs looking into case files from government websites. The difference in "nearly blind" and "blind is also worth noting.

The paragraph is followed by an excerpt from the New York Times titled "In Pakistan rape victims are the criminals" which discusses the case of Zafran Bibi, which could be relevant to Safia Bibi's case as they are similar however, this connection could be made clearer. The problem arises in the immediate next line "The appeal judgment of the Federal Shariah Court cleared the girl of the accusation of zina," where the use of "the girl" instead of a name indicates its referring the immediate previous girl talked about — which would be Zafran Bibi. The citation for this sentence reveals it actually refers to Safia Bibi.

Should the excerpt for Zafran Bibi be removed and the case of Safia Bibi expanded or is it worth rearranging and looking deeper into Zafran Bibi's case. A single article from the NYT is not credible enough evidence to build a coherent paragraph on. Watrr99 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)